Court spares petitioner default status during appeals, stresses fair review

The court directed that the petitioner not be treated as an assessee in default during pending appeals for various Assessment Years, considering the 50% deposit made. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeals independently and promptly without influence from the current order, emphasizing the petitioner's non-default status and the need for fair consideration of the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Dispute over treatment as assessee in default during pendency of appeals for different Assessment Years.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses petitions by a State Government undertaking challenging the rejection of their proposal not to be treated as assessee in default on payment of 25% of the outstanding demand for three Assessment Years. The Assessing Officer had raised demands for various additions in the Assessment Orders for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2012-13. The petitioner-assessee, pending appeals before the CIT(A), proposed to pay 25% of the demand to avoid default status. However, the proposal was rejected, leading to the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were legally unsustainable, citing precedents in favor of the assessee. They contended that the proposal for partial payment should have been accepted, especially since they had already deposited 50% of the demanded amount as per an interim order. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision in support of their plea.

The respondent, while not opposing the petitioner's deposit of 50% of the demand, requested the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on their merits without influence from the current order. The court, refraining from expressing views on the merits of the issues, directed that the petitioner not be treated as assessee in default during the pending appeals, considering the 50% deposit made. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeals independently and promptly, without being swayed by the current order.

In conclusion, all petitions were disposed of with this direction, ensuring the petitioner's non-default status during the appeal process and emphasizing the CIT(A)'s independent consideration of the appeals.

---